Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I said the basis of Ueshiba's stuff is part of the Asia-wide cosmology and within that cosmology is the well-known concept of working in harmony with the natural laws of the Universe.

... apart from the facts I mentioned as to "the basis" that he himself understood for his art (among many others that I did not) that just don't fit at all into your overly broad assumption.

If we simply assume away facts contrary to our position we can reach any result we like. This kind of argument from selectively generalized assumptions is dismissive to a degree that is not fitting of aikido, (i.e. - it lacks musubi or close connection with the subject being discussed).

I cannot assume away a bokken being swung at my head. I had better address it squarely. One way or the other we will certainly achieve musubi, but I'd really prefer it to be on my own motion.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

That's fine, Erick, but the "great deal MORE " is not what I'm talking about.

I take it, then, that the boundary where your desire to understand aikido stops -- is at "LESS."

Wow there seems to be alot of contraversy about whether Aikido is a religion, so I would like to say my humble opionon, I guess it really depends on the persons feelings. Some people may see it as a religion, others not, O' Sensei said Aikido is a religion that is not a religion, it embraces all reilgions and purifies all. And well I guess I wouldn't call it a martial art. O'sensei saw all the strife and violence around him and Aikido was a physical expression of his beliefs, one of his dokas states that Budo can not be emcompassed or explained in words and that one would have to explore and discover it for themself. O'sensei's overall message was one of peace so really you needn't learn the physical aspects of Aikido to be doing Aikido, so in some ways I guess it is a religion

... apart from the facts I mentioned as to "the basis" that he himself understood for his art (among many others that I did not) that just don't fit at all into your overly broad assumption.

If we simply assume away facts contrary to our position we can reach any result we like.

You haven't given any "facts" that dispute what I said, though. All you've done is blather. Here's what I said in my post:

Quote:

I have never been convinced that Ueshiba was talking about "peace" so much as he was parrotting the "harmony with the Universe" which is the basis for so much Asian cosmology. But hey.... each to his own.

That's all I said. The peace and harmony with the laws of Nature is part of the whole Yin-Yang cosmology which Ueshiba used. It's blatantly in his Douka and other writings. My opinion that you're doing your best to tear down is in that little box, Erick. It's not a major statement, but it's certainly true. If you don't think that Ueshiba used the Yin-Yang cosmology as a basis for his religious beliefs, then show me what he did use. If you say "Shinto", then you need to do some research on the Kojiki.

The peace and harmony with the laws of Nature is part of the whole Yin-Yang cosmology which Ueshiba used. It's blatantly in his Douka and other writings.

Ueshiba's "Peace and harmony with the Laws of Nature" also draws heavily on Neo-Confucian authoritarian paternalism in the sphere of human relations, on shamanistic practices both native and continental in the realm of personal spiritual adventurism, and simple consonance with the smooth rap and flow of the charismatic Onisaburo, all wrapped up in a furoshiki woven of such disparate strands of rhetoric as Norinaga's 18th Century nativist Kokugaku, Wang Yang Min's 19th Century intuitive Buddhist revolutionism, the Esperanto Society's 20th Century internationalism, and the high sheen of triumphalist gnostic exceptionalism.

They're all blatantly there in the Doka.

And it all makes about as much sense as Sun Ra's cosmology, an example I choose simply because I think his music is at least as brilliant as Ueshiba's Budo, and many of his other expressions of his genius just about as esoteric, syncretic, non-systemic, and -- dare I say it -- out to lunch as Ueshiba's works off the mat.

That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't allow that the world would be a poorer place if George Clinton hadn't taken on Sun Ra's Mothership concept and gotten up on the down stroke with it.

Ueshiba's "Peace and harmony with the Laws of Nature" also draws heavily on...

Hi Fred:

I understand all that and I have never gainsaid it. My point was that at core is the Yin-Yang cosmology and the attention on following the laws of nature in "harmony". That cosmology is also the basis for many of the other things you mentioned, BTW. Peace and Harmony is good. It feels good. Ueshiba, though, didn't come up with the concept and the fact that if feels good, nor was he the first person to include it in his martial teachings, by any means.

Incidentally, I'm not trying to come across as a nihilist. My approach is more in line with dispassion being a correct approach as opposed to passionate defense of strongly-held beliefs somehow being a proof of the "spiritual". Martially, you're probably well-read enough to know that I'm on firm ground with that correspondence.

... Neo-Confucian authoritarian paternalism in the sphere of human relations, on shamanistic practices both native and continental in the realm of personal spiritual adventurism, and simple consonance with the smooth rap and flow of the charismatic Onisaburo, all wrapped up in a furoshiki woven of such disparate strands of rhetoric as Norinaga's 18th Century nativist Kokugaku, Wang Yang Min's 19th Century intuitive Buddhist revolutionism, the Esperanto Society's 20th Century internationalism, and the high sheen of triumphalist gnostic exceptionalism. ... many of his other expressions of his genius just about as esoteric, syncretic, non-systemic, and -- dare I say it -- out to lunch as Ueshiba's works off the mat.

Geez! Not a poet among the bunch of ya ...! BTW -- Wang Yang Ming -- 16th century. The Old Man was trying to communicate complex things that do not denote well in the ebst of circumstances -- if at all. That does not make the attempt to get inside that stream ofthought meaningless or worthless to consider seriously in its own right, and without prejudging assumptions about what it does or does not have to say. I am constantly amazed at those who, not having the time, inclination or background to delve carefully into these things treat them as not worthy of being delved into at all. The lamp may be worthless to a blind man -- that does not mean it has no uses.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

My point was that at core is the Yin-Yang cosmology and the attention on following the laws of nature in "harmony".

As opposed, say, to the "laws of nature" "red in tooth and claw" ?? Exemplified in the Warring States? There is a world of Chinese thought beyond Taoism, you know. Taoist concepts of Yin and Yang have nothing to say about peace in preference by prinicple, other than it is a pole opposite war. Taoism my fit your ideas of dispassion and moral remove "Heaven is very high, and the emperor is far away." It does not refelct O Sensei's thoughts on anythign other than a rudimentary level

Worse yet as counter example to the "common Asian cosmology" you falsely posit, was the recurrent resumption of the totalitarian legalism (fajia 法家 ) that sanctioned a minefield of laws, selective enforcement, harsh punishment and bound it all up in a nice little bow of the cult of rulership. The foremost modern practitioner of this ancient school of Chinese philosophy is named Kim Jong-Il.

If you really want a closer call on any "root" doctrione of Chinese philosophical as influence on both Omoto and particularly O Sensei's EXPRESSED sensibilities -- look more carefully at the passionate engagement that WAS expressed and the emphasis on Love and Peace in O Sensei's writing -- in other words, ya left out Moism.

Mozi proclaimed the doctrine of universal love (兼愛 jian ai). O Sensei, in several Doka, would write "Aikido" with the variant "love" ("ai" 愛 ) substituted. His conception of the "Art of Peace" and his principles of technique are spot on with Mozi's stance against all aggression and war. Also in common was MOzi's reliance on Heaven not a s a dispassiont amoral force of nature, but as a benevolent and personal, moral force in human nature and society. This is much closer to the humane principles expressed by O Sensei in his work, and his own sense of affinity to root Christian teachings, to which Moism has often been compared.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

My approach is more in line with dispassion being a correct approach as opposed to passionate defense of strongly-held beliefs somehow being a proof of the "spiritual".

When dealing with objects -- objective terms are usually best. As a general rule, however, people should be treated as subjects, not objects, and it is better to try to understand a person on his own terms. That way we can see what commonalities or distcintion actually exist betwen different people and their circumstances, rather making poorly drawn assumptions, yet again, based merely on one's own unsubstantiated terms.

One final note. I once attended Friday evening training in the Aikikai Hombu, taught by Kisshomaru Doshu. The late Arikawa Sadateru was doing ordinary training, as was an 8th dan who shall be nameless. For some reason Arikawa Sensei went over to the 8th dan and had him throw him. He was completely immovable. Arikawa Sensei never explained in clear terms what he 'had' and some posters here might think he was wrong in this.

The comments and questions (not unexpected) from Mr Harden and Mr Sigman are partly why I added the final sentence to the above quote.

I was training with someone else at the time, about fifteen years ago, and saw what was going on as I was doing so. Arikawa Sensei had a fearsome reputation in the Hombu and when he came on the mat 'just to practise', it was best to be aware of where he was and what he was doing. So I cannot say for certain.

I'm surprised Shirata Sensei didn't make that list (especially with his family Omoto connections...)

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,
I thought of that at the time but was in listening mode as Stan and Sensei talked. I also thought of Inoue Sensei, O-Sensei's nephew... Of course he distanced himself from O-Sensei after the Omotokyo suppression but he continued to call what he did Aiki Budo right up to the war, I believe which was what O-sensei was calling his art. From the films I have seen, no one looked as much like the Founder as he did and from his interview in Aikido Journal he seemed to have a very compatible view about what he was doing.

Ted,
I absolutely have no idea what you mean by this statement... what do you mean he is "just" transposing cosmology into Aiki terminology?

Of course he was transposing Omotokyo ideas into somethjing new which he created out of his spiritual practice and his martial practice. O-Sensei had an extensive Shingon background as well as a deep commitment to Omotokyo. He had a varied martial background with a primary influence of Daito Ryu. His creation of Aikido was a unique interpretation of those elements...

Like a musician who transposes music from one key to another, Morihei Ueshiba changed the concepts that appeared in Onisaburo Deguchi's The Reikai Monogatari (Tales of the Spirit World) into the practices that would become known as Aikido. He did not originate these concepts, but transformed them into a budo.

Of course you could argue that "he" didn't create aikido, but it was the kami which possessed him that did. This could be sticky argument from a psychological standpoint, but it is certainly easier to argue than Erick's AJ article of O Sensei as rabbinical student.

I don't see any difference between Dennis Hooker's statements and what Kanshu Sunadomari wrote in Enlightenment through Aikido. Normally I would assume Hooker was repeating the book, except that Sunadormari also mentioned the Monogatari utopian concept from O Sensei's writings and talks.

Quote:

Moon of Onisaburo Deguchi wrote:

About the Monogatari...It is also an odyssey of how good deities establish a Maitreyan utopia on earth while leading evil spirits to mend their ways with divine power.

Quote:

the Founder wrote:

Life's true purpose is to build an infinite and eternal Heaven on the face of the Earth. from Enlightenment through Aikido pg. 65

That is just transposition.

It is not practice that makes perfect, it is correct practice that makes perfect.About KiAbout You

Seems that a Budo with a goal of bringing peace through nonviolence could make very good use of that particular skill. It would leave me wondering if that wasn't the best skill set of all. As it is the basis for everything else that has meaning. Odd that it isn't at the forefront of everything.
Which leaves the questions.
1. Did he do this regularly?
2. Did others do as well- or just him?
3. Was anyone interested in knowing what he was doing?
4. Did you ever see anyone ask?

Tomiki was supposedly witnessed doing these things?
Did anyone ever see anyone being taught how to do these things?
Did anyone ask?
Reminds me of conversations I've had with various men under Menkyo Kaidens, under Shihan, and under master level teachers in the CMA. Sensei can do this, sensei can do that, sifu this, sifu that.
I always wonder when they say these things. What can you do, what can't you do .....why?

Dan

I think one reason is mindset. At Japanese universities it is traditional for students not to ask their professors questions and I once had this explained to me by one of my earliest aikido teachers: in Japan asking a question implies a whole lot more than simply asking the question. But this becomes a major problem when you are a graduate student and need to chart your own course of future studies.

There is an acute awareness here that Japan has too few Nobel prizes and too few Japanese universities are top ranked. So the Japanese education ministry now want students to be taught to use individual initiative, but note that they are telling people this, as if it will simply happen as a result.

I think that Tomiki, Arikawa, Tada and a few others figured out for themselves what M Ueshiba was doing in his personal training. They did not so much ask him questions as watch, feel, especially when they took ukemi, and then work out what they thought was going on. The problem here is that the focus of this training is still the Master and what the Master shows. However, I have indicated above that this is not a problem unique to budo training.

I added the reference to Arikawa to show that some shihans had figured out for themselves that the distinction 'internal/external' when applied to aikido (CMA = mainly internal / Aikido = mainly external--and less efficient than, e.g., DRAJJ or BJJ) is too superficial. But it has to be faced, and accepted for what it is, that none of them talked about it in those terms (internal vs. external training), if they talked about it at all.

Geez! Not a poet among the bunch of ya ...! BTW -- Wang Yang Ming -- 16th century. The Old Man was trying to communicate complex things that do not denote well in the ebst of circumstances -- if at all. That does not make the attempt to get inside that stream ofthought meaningless or worthless to consider seriously in its own right, and without prejudging assumptions about what it does or does not have to say. I am constantly amazed at those who, not having the time, inclination or background to delve carefully into these things treat them as not worthy of being delved into at all. The lamp may be worthless to a blind man -- that does not mean it has no uses.

Erick:

I plead guilty to not having read Want Yang Ming in a decade, and thank you for the correction on the date of his life, which my dim recollectionI led me to confuse with the date of his revival.

As a past recipieint of the Ina Coolbrith Prize in Poetry, I have an intense interest in the saggy tits of circumstance and no compunction whatsoever about saying unequivocally that whatever virtues Ueshiba's doka may have, few -- if any -- of them have to do with their quality as poetry.

Excellence in one area of endeavor rarely extends to other areas, Jefferson, daVinci, Vico, or even less illustrious but more contemporary examples such as Edward Said and Noam Chomsky notwithstanding.

That doesn't mean the doka don't have evidentiary value.

But I'm not about to pretend to hold the view that they have value as poetry or as a unique philosophical distillation and reformulation of old wisdom made new for our times.

If you want to make that case, I wish you good luck. You're going to need it.

...whatever virtues Ueshiba's doka may have, few -- if any -- of them have to do with their quality as poetry.
....
That doesn't mean the doka don't have evidentiary value.

But I'm not about to pretend to hold the view that they have value as poetry or as a unique philosophical distillation and reformulation of old wisdom made new for our times.

Well, they beat Ginsberg all to hell, let's just say that ...

Their value (along with his lectures) is not in their success as art, but as guide to his other art. Whatever the marks for quality a modern critic of poetry may give, they are his considered effort to put his own mind into words about the art he gave us.

Interpreting meaning from them requires poetic imagination, and a willingness to explore levels of allusion and symbol, regardless of the level of art that they represent. They are myth, fairy-story, and alchemy. The prime criticism of them from the modernist standpoint is also the key to them -- you can only understand them by standing inside them.

Really, Erick. In your now-seemingly-ingrained habit, you just look for something to argue, even when you don't know what you're talking about. You think Yin and Yang are solely Taoist concepts?

Mozi too much for you ?

It is easy to dismiss with trivial observations what you do not really wish to comprehend. The fact that yin/yang concepts informed many other streams of Chinese culture and its adopted daughters, is not arguable. Of course, I didn't argue it. Taoism informs Chinese culture generally, as it informs Japanese and Korean culture generally. So what? It was a point I did not dispute. They are hardly the only ideas originating in China nor even the most influential in a given circumstance.

Nor does it matter for this purpose. I only made the point that your levelling assumptions about their predominance in his work are overwrought and wrong.

That aspect of O Sensei's teaching is neither novel nor exceptional. There are novel and exceptional aspects of his art in the context of Japan that are not so easily trivialized as seem wont to do. Those aspects have no reference to the yin-yang cosmology that you assume to predominate everything else. I have pointed some of them out, with refernces both to Western cosmological thought as well as Mohist doctrines that are spot on point. Whether this was his own pastiche or an amalgam of Omoto concepts, does not matter if you want to understand what he thought and why he thought it in the context of the art that he taught.

I think that Tomiki, Arikawa, Tada and a few others figured out for themselves what M Ueshiba was doing in his personal training. They did not so much ask him questions as watch, feel, especially when they took ukemi, and then work out what they thought was going on. The problem here is that the focus of this training is still the Master and what the Master shows. However, I have indicated above that this is not a problem unique to budo training.

It's a good point. My personal guess (based on some observations and experience, but admittedly limited) is that there was a certain amount of anecdotal knowledge of Ki things in the dojo. I think that's prevalent in most martial arts dojos in Asia. Knowing anecdotally that the Ki things were there (and what they could do, what they were comprised of, etc.... the common knowledge can be pretty high in an Asian dojo), being able to see Ueshiba demonstrate these things, etc., gave a situation probably more ripe than they "figured out for themselves". It was probably far more obvious than that, in my speculation.

Quote:

I added the reference to Arikawa to show that some shihans had figured out for themselves that the distinction 'internal/external' when applied to aikido (CMA = mainly internal / Aikido = mainly external--and less efficient than, e.g., DRAJJ or BJJ) is too superficial. But it has to be faced, and accepted for what it is, that none of them talked about it in those terms (internal vs. external training), if they talked about it at all.

The "internal" vs "external" dichotomy is probably not pertinent in these discussions. All the Chinese martial arts use "nei gongs" ("internal exercises") to develop "nei jing" ("internal strength"), but to varying degrees, to varying degrees of added musculature versus ki, and so on. Only a few (tops = 16) Chinese martial arts are considered to be part of the "Nei JIa", the "internal families" or "internal styles". These styles use a store and release of the dantien that is simply a variant usage of the "nei jing" skills... nothing more.

So to be perfectly accurate, Aikido has "Nei Jing" (internal strength) and there is a general variant shown by Ueshiba, Tohei, and Abe Sensei's (among others) that indicates the preferred usage of nei jing in Aikido is one of the softer varieties, not the harder varieties seen in some karate's, southern Chinese martial arts, and so on

What can be said of Aikido is not that it's an "internal art", but it is accurate to say that it uses "internal power", etc.... just like all the other Asian martial arts. Right now there is beginning to be a movement by some people to re-insert that core strength intot their Aikido; others will resist even if the logic becomes inescapable. But that's not the concern, or it shouldn't be, IMO. The concern should be for the accuracy with which we all transmit our knowledge of the various arts (and that includes the use of these skills in calligraphy, tea ceremony, Japanese dance, and so on).

I think that Tomiki, Arikawa, Tada and a few others figured out for themselves what M Ueshiba was doing in his personal training. They did not so much ask him questions as watch, feel, especially when they took ukemi, and then work out what they thought was going on. The problem here is that the focus of this training is still the Master and what the Master shows. However, I have indicated above that this is not a problem unique to budo training.

I wonder how much had to do with the year/time differences, too? The "pre-war" students were learning at a time when Ueshiba was still younger and "polishing" his art. While the "post war" students studied under an older Ueshiba who already had the time put in to polish his art somewhat.

Do you think that the pre-war students might have gotten better access and insight into Ueshiba's art while he was still "experimenting"? And the post war students having a harder time learning because Ueshiba didn't show nearly as much access or insight into his art?

I plead guilty to not having read Want Yang Ming in a decade, and thank you for the correction on the date of his life, which my dim recollectionI led me to confuse with the date of his revival.

Aw heck, you get a full pardon for having read him at all... or really even, for anything other than a blank stare at the mention of his name ...

I guess the point I am making here is actually the one Wang also made. Our conceptions and actions are of one piece.

To say we know without acting on that knowledge or practicing it is to demonstrate the illusory (false and seducing) nature of that assertion as "knowledge" in the first place. I find this tight interlacing in O Sensei's expression of his knowledge with the expression of actions in the art. It is far from being a parroting of the principle of the unity of knowledge and action. It is an exceedingly fine example of its detailed application.

This is the heart of the teaching and application of musubi -- eliminate the boundary between the external and the internal -- yin and yang. That is why Mike is overreaching the yin-yang aspects, because exploiting duality is precisely NOT what the art is about.

The disconnect or the unwillingness to realize connections between the things we know and things we do, are troubling and a source of disharmony, both internally and externally. They are one thing -- only falsely distinguished. In musubi, I need not know what my enemy plans or "knows" he will do to formulate my strategy in advance -- he does it and, at that moment, he is not truly capable of knowing or planning anything beyond what he is actually doing, or else he has ceased to actually do it and is occupied in doing something else.

The only question is whether I am in connection with his action by sharing in that action and therefore sharing immediately in his knowledge of it -- or disconnected and ignorant of both knowledge and action.

The internal power pushing tests described by Dan, Mike Rob and others demonstrate this problem. They wish to be pushed -- but do not wish to be pushed. The cognitive dissonnace is written on the face of the problem. The internal and external are set conflict. There is no unity -- only conflict. That the conflict is not overt is irrelevant. Can anybody spell p-a-s-s-i-v-e a-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e?

As a result, if he really does not wish to be pushed, if I achieve musubi, why would I ever push him? We just stand there. Aikido is operating perfectly and absolutely nothing is happening, not merely the appearance of nothign happening. For more aikido to happen he needs to decide something and act on it and I'll gladly join in. I'll wait....

Only if one accepts given assumptions from which a certain logic operates does it become inescapable. I don't; It isn't. Not proved.

I realize you don't understand or accept the logic of the jin and ki skills, Erick. And granted, it's obviously "not proved" to you personally, but frankly it's pretty well proved in a lot of the martial world and is sort of a ho-hum topic. Whether you catch up or not is up to you.... it's not up to someone to prove it to your satisfaction. Pretty much the only options I see for you at the moment is to get out there and look (as has been suggested to you) or for you to wait until it's overwhelming and then to try and pretend that's what you meant all along.

Like a musician who transposes music from one key to another, Morihei Ueshiba changed the concepts that appeared in Onisaburo Deguchi's The Reikai Monogatari (Tales of the Spirit World) into the practices that would become known as Aikido. He did not originate these concepts, but transformed them into a budo.

Of course you could argue that "he" didn't create aikido, but it was the kami which possessed him that did. This could be sticky argument from a psychological standpoint, but it is certainly easier to argue than Erick's AJ article of O Sensei as rabbinical student.

I don't see any difference between Dennis Hooker's statements and what Kanshu Sunadomari wrote in Enlightenment through Aikido. Normally I would assume Hooker was repeating the book, except that Sunadormari also mentioned the Monogatari utopian concept from O Sensei's writings and talks.

That is just transposition.

I still don't get the point... why the "just"? as if his contribution to creating something new was somehow smaller than it was...

Lots of folks subscribed to these spiritual ideas. The Omotkyo had a hundreds of thousands followers at one point. Only O-Sensei took these concepts and related them to Budo movement and prectice. His interpretation of Budo is unique.

You can find the sources for his spiritual ideas in a number of places. You can find the sources for his martial techniques in various places. But before O-Sensei, you could not find a form of Budo that was like what O-Sensei created; not in the outer form or in the practice.

I realize you don't understand or accept the logic of the jin and ki skills, Erick.

I do accept them in their own right and I have not disputed their contribution to the cultural and technical underlayment of aikido. Which you routinely ignore so as to make ill-founded ad hominem slaps in place of informed argument.

Please carry on. It is fun. Beating me up does exactly nothing to prove your position, I might point out. Gee, is it third grade all over again?

What I do not accept is YOUR contention that YOUR conception of these skills is necessarily correct in regards specifically to applying Aikido, nor that it is the "lost secret" for the salvation of Aikido -- nor, indeed, that it is in need of rescue, nor yet that there is anything lost at all.

Granted, there are some people who may be...

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

... wait until it's overwhelming and then to try and pretend that's what you meant all along.

The internal power pushing tests described by Dan, Mike Rob and others demonstrate this problem. They wish to be pushed -- but do not wish to be pushed. The cognitive dissonnace is written on the face of the problem. The internal and external are set conflict. There is no unity -- only conflict. That the conflict is not overt is irrelevant. Can anybody spell p-a-s-s-i-v-e a-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e?

Erick,
I just have to chime in here. It seems that you have the wrong interpretation of what they are doing and what is happening. There is no conflict, only "harmony" of energies. Really.

Quote:

Erick Mead wrote:

As a result, if he really does not wish to be pushed, if I achieve musubi, why would I ever push him? We just stand there. Aikido is operating perfectly and absolutely nothing is happening, not merely the appearance of nothign happening. For more aikido to happen he needs to decide something and act on it and I'll gladly join in. I'll wait....

And the same goes for what they are doing. Only here, you are a bit backwards. It isn't that they are pushing as in your former example above, but that they are standing there like you, centered. Aikido is still operating perfectly and nothing is happening. It's that simple. However, if that person does do something, then there is a harmony of energies ... a "join in" ... just not in the way that most people "harmonize" in Aikido.

What they are doing is all about harmony and never about conflict. They couldn't do what they're doing if they used a conflict method. The basic, underlying premise is a bit different, but the resultant is the same -- harmony.

Where a lot of Aikido people will actively harmonize (action verb) with uke, internal stuff has an affect that causes uke to harmonize. Both ways end up doing something to uke that causes harmony.

Hmmm ... maybe this example:

Let's say that there is a 4' diameter ball weighing 150 pounds. It's rolling along an even path in a straight direction at a slow pace.

A person trots beside it, harmonizes with the ball and slowly creates a different spin/path/direction/speed such that the person/ball creates a new path.

Or the ground starts sloping/altering in such a way that a new spin/path/direction/speed opens up and the ground/ball creates a new path.

Either way, the ball has had some change. There is no conflict. For just as the person "harmonized" with the ball, so did the ground. The person had to create some sort of harmony with the ball just as the ground did. If the person's actions are viewed as harmonizing, then the ground's actions must also be viewed that way for both are physical forces applying some change upon the ball and neither have a direct, stopping effect.

But, the person *effected* the ball while the ground had an *affect* upon the ball. Different manners to change the ball, but there was a "harmony" from both.

Like a musician who transposes music from one key to another, Morihei Ueshiba changed the concepts that appeared in Onisaburo Deguchi's The Reikai Monogatari (Tales of the Spirit World) into the practices that would become known as Aikido. ... That is just transposition.

Quote:

George S. Ledyard wrote:

I still don't get the point... why the "just"? as if his contribution to creating something new was somehow smaller than it was...

But before O-Sensei, you could not find a form of Budo that was like what O-Sensei created; not in the outer form or in the practice.

This theme and the nature of Ted's and other's objections addressed here reminds me of a topical scene from the film "Amadeus." Emperor Joseph of Austria is expressing some diplomatic displeasure on hearing Mozart's opera in Vienna.

Quote:

Emperor Joseph: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

False. They wish to have a partner push on them...and they maintain their internal structure. So the push has no outward affect.

Quote:

The cognitive dissonnace is written on the face of the problem. The internal and external are set conflict. There is no unity -- only conflict. That the conflict is not overt is irrelevant. Can anybody spell p-a-s-s-i-v-e a-g-r-e-s-s-i-v-e?

Personally, I see much more passive agressive behavior in aikido...but maybe that's just me. Oh, wait...it's been mentioned before! Maybe it's not just me...

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)